Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 Next
Comments 59201 to 59250:
-
Jim Powell at 03:36 AM on 10 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
In addition to Weart's book and website, I have run across another valuable resource, Historical Perspectives on Climate Science by James Rodger Fleming. He does not agree with Weart in every detail. Here is the way Fleming ends his section on Fourier: "For Fourier, the "temperature of space" was much more important than the greenhouse effect in controlling terrestrial temperatures." Fleming gives Callendar more credit than most authors I have read. He has also written a biography called "The Callendar Effect." -
dana1981 at 02:53 AM on 10 May 2012Turbines in Texas mix up nighttime heat
This particular myth dovetails two of the denialists' favorites passtimes - attacking renewable energy, and attacking climate science. So it's not at all surprising that they jumped all over this myth. -
Albatross at 02:53 AM on 10 May 2012Turbines in Texas mix up nighttime heat
MarkR, That is a very interesting hypothesis that you present! -
Albatross at 02:49 AM on 10 May 2012Turbines in Texas mix up nighttime heat
MarkR, Thanks for this post. It is ludicrous (but not surprising) how the "skeptics" are trying to spin this-- they are once again grasping at straws, doing their best to fabricate doubt and create a new meme. As 70rn noted @1, warming is occuring over regions with no wind farms. In fact, the strongest warming is occuring over the Arctic with nary a wind turbine in sight. Additionally, orchard farmers have been using turbines for a very long time to reduce the chance of freezing during the winter. It is well known that the turbulence from the blades causes mixing in the vertical and that at nighttime the turbulence mixes down relatively warmer air from aloft (from the temperature nocturnal inversion to be specific). But this works only at a very local scale and only at night. -
Daniel Bailey at 02:45 AM on 10 May 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
John, I would invite Mike to examine the BEST data (land-only) available:[Source] 1940, in context, doesn't look all that warm compared to present temps {snip}. I caution you not to expect too much as he's a known ideologue who has bought heavily into that promulgated by the fake-skeptic blogs.
Moderator Response: TC: Ad hominen snipped. -
Sapient Fridge at 02:32 AM on 10 May 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Matthew L, I'm curious as to why you don't like the map projection? Not equal area? Looks like a Miller Cylindrical to me. It's from 1942, but most map projections are older than that. All map projections necessarily have distortion, though some are more pleasant to look at than others. See here for more information.Moderator Response:[DB] Speaking as a former professional nautical cartographer, the intended use of a map determines the projection used. For any global representation the projection choice is not ideal, as one has to represent a nearly-spherical object in a 2-dimensional plane. For global purposes, this is my representation of choice for the oceans:
[Source]
-
70rn at 02:29 AM on 10 May 2012Turbines in Texas mix up nighttime heat
I'm fairly incredulous of the idea that such pundits actually /believe/ such arguments - given the obvious ways to disprove it (e.g. the Arctic sea warms sans windmills, etc...). However, it does appear that any straw that can be is being grasped in an attempt to keep the mouthpieces afloat. It does appear that willful blindness is heady draught for some. Over at Roy Spencer's site the april UAH anomaly has been announced at ~ .3 of a degree, complete with the graph of monthly values going back over the last 3 decades or so. One commentator immediately wrote a very convoluted post arguing that the yearly anomaly will only be ~ .05, based on the first three (la nina) months averaged with the most recent value. If he'd bothered to look at the trend graph he was commenting on, he'd have noticed the short term nature of la nina - and that such predictions would be highly unlikely - to say the least. However noisy data seems to attract noisy posters, looking for the starship in the sunshine, so to speak. http://www.periscopepost.com/2011/12/massive-alien-death-star-spotted-parked-by-mercury-possibly/ ^^ I know it's way off topic - but it's pretty reflective of how obvious science is mangled atm. -
Composer99 at 02:21 AM on 10 May 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
jsam: I would suggest posting direct links to the NCDC online and asking the contributor to explain why the information provided by agency that actually publishes the information he is using stands in such stark contrast to his conclusions. He should be able to explain how his number-crunching is methodologically superior to the NCDC if he expects his conclusions to be persuasive. -
jsam at 01:58 AM on 10 May 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
I have recently been in an online discussion on another board with a contributor who tells me he has been crunching NCDC statistics. As a result he believes the 1940s were as warm as today. I've shown him GISS graphs and he's waved them away as based upon extrapolated data. He's been kind enough to post his graphs and charts on science20. In response to the recent news of May11-Apr12 being the warmest 12 months, as recently reported, he has posted http://www.science20.com/comments/107815/John_Samuel_%C2%B7_Says. And, in response to my pointing him to GISStemp data showing an increase from 1940-2010 he posted this, http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/2011_5th_warmest_year_decades-87380, I've encouraged him to post himself to see if his findings bear scrutiny. He's demurred. Do any of the gentle readers have any comments? -
dana1981 at 01:36 AM on 10 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
Alexandre @43 - join the club! Lindzen's behavior has bothered me for a long time. He constantly says things which any climate scientists should know are untrue (hence our series of posts on his statements). -
Alexandre at 01:22 AM on 10 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
I posted something yesterday, and I don't see it here. I think I got carried away and broke the comments policy... sorry! Anyway, Lindzen's claims that models show higher climate sensitivity than empirical data bothers me a lot. After all, he's a working climate scientist, and can't possibly be unaware of all the papers on sensitivity, both from models and empirical data, that are largely consistent with each other (as shown in fig. 2). -
Tom Curtis at 01:04 AM on 10 May 2012Prudent Risk
Composer99 @30, and MuonCounter @28, if you leave "bad" out of the statement as Paul Magnus suggests, it reads:"If we continue in a business-as-usual scenario, the results [will be] catastrophic."
That does not represent an optimistic point of view. Indeed, it is too pessimistic. A climate sensitivity of 2, for example, would be bad with BAU, but it is far from clear that it would be catastrophic, and has not been ruled out by the science as yet. Rather than being too optimistic, Magnus is too pessimistic. Unfortunately, catastrophic is more probable than merely bad with BAU. But in the event that the world's governments continue to fail future generations, there remains some hope that the worst possible consequences will be avoided. -
Composer99 at 00:56 AM on 10 May 2012Prudent Risk
Paul Magnus: The trees & wildlife killed off in the Amazon droughts of 2005 & 2010 (both of which were considered very unlikely events), the farmers & ranchers affected by the floods in Pakistan and the drought in Texas, and the Russians affected by the extraordinary heat wave in Moscow would beg to differ with your claim:The probability of bad at current emissions levels is so low that may be it should be left out of this statement.
-
Tristan at 00:47 AM on 10 May 2012Prudent Risk
I think Muon's jaded eyes are seeing an enemy where there is a friend. ;) I read Paul's comment as 'there is no way it will be only "bad", if things continue unabated'. -
muoncounter at 00:41 AM on 10 May 2012Prudent Risk
Paul Magnus#27, Do you have any information to substantiate this claim? Perhaps something from a peer-reviewed science journal? Given that some 'results' are already starting to happen, your optimism is curious. -
Paul Magnus at 00:19 AM on 10 May 2012Prudent Risk
"If we continue in a business-as-usual scenario, the results range from bad to catastrophic." The probability of bad at current emissions levels is so low that may be it should be left out of this statement. -
SteveS at 00:08 AM on 10 May 2012101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions
Wow. I had never looked at any of these questions before, but these seem revealing to me. Many of the questions (e.g. 14) display, in my mind, either a stunning level of ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Some interesting information in there that I wasn't aware of. I was especially interested in the graph in the response to question 78 showing the rapid rise in sea level in the last century. I'd never seen that one before. -
chriskoz at 23:52 PM on 9 May 2012101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions
Looking through thte linked PDF, out of 101 questions I counted 20 classified as incorrect/misleading and 2 as irrelevant. So, some acknowledgement to Plimer is in order: at least he keeps his dicourse sensibly to the topic in 98%. This is opposed to some other contrarians (e.g. Monckton) who operate by trolling & gish-gallopping with the only visible aim of confusing the listener rather than conveying any coherent information, even if false one. I would like to check Plimer's "expected answers" to this questionaire. Does anyone know if Plimer did publish his answers? It would be interesting to compare them, just to see the talking points of his followers in the interest of easier debunking if needed. -
alexharv074 at 22:32 PM on 9 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
(-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] Your continued tone-trolling makes clear you cede the field on the topic of the OP of this thread: Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science.
For the record, if you are unable to mount a presence here that focuses on the actual science & is presented in compliance with this site's Comments Policy (which poses no undue burden to the vast majority of commentators here), then you are welcome to take your interactions in climate science blogs to other venues.
-
Utahn at 22:31 PM on 9 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
So, back to addressing the arguments, Alex, was Lindzen wrong to say we shouldve seen 3C by now? -
Daniel Bailey at 22:30 PM on 9 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
A little visual adds perspective for the claim that the CET record runs counter to the global temperature record, and for that claim about the Maunder recovery with the imputation that that rise was similar to that of today:
[Source]
-
Utahn at 22:28 PM on 9 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
"We should have seen 3C.". I will be pleasantly surprised when Alex states "this is wrong." -
MA Rodger at 22:22 PM on 9 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
The annual CO2 rise was 2.9ppm. Increases up to 3.0ppm lasting for one or two months are not so unusual. A graph showing such rises in MLO data two clicks down here. However, what makes it a little more alarming is that ENSO has only just turned positive & it is ENSO that precedes these increased rates of CO2 rise. To add to that, RSS gives April a 0.333 deg C global temperature, again nudging up high before ENSO has even started. On a different note (& more 'on-topic'), the idea that Lindzen has ever given any thought to the impact that global surface temperatures is entirely farcical. It is realising his blasé attitude to rising temperature that has made me see what a buffoon Lindzen really is (or more correctly has always been. His comment I relate below is nothing new.) In his recent talk in London he compared the 0.7 deg C rise in global temperature over the last century to the temperature changes experienced in Boston. This is bar room gobby-git talk, but perhaps simply Lindzen doing propaganda. What convinced me he genuinely believes this tosh was his comment at the conclusion of this bit of his talk. “Say, at least so far, I mean if some day I see there are changes 20 times what I’ve seen so far, that would be certainly remarkable. But nothing so far looks that way.” That's 20x 0.7 deg C or +14.0 deg C. Anybody who dismisses the prospect of such a rise in global temperatures in such a manner cannot be considered any sort of climatologist. -
Daniel Bailey at 22:16 PM on 9 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
Robin, the Central England Temperature record is not the world. Using it as an argument against global temperatures is a serious fallacy and is generally considered an attempt to misinform. Was that your intent? Edit: Also, my recollection was that the proper repository of CET data was the Met Office, here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ -
robin6721 at 22:01 PM on 9 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
@DSL, On CET, 0.585C per decade average from the 1690`s to the 1730`s http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat -
pvincell at 20:35 PM on 9 May 2012101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions
I've said this before, but I can't say it enough. Skeptical Science is a superior resource because it is grounded in peer-reviewed, published scientific literature. I cannot thank you all enough for providing all the updates, summaries, syntheses, and citations to important research papers. That this is all done on a voluntary basis is phenomenal. Paul Vincelli -
Sceptical Wombat at 19:55 PM on 9 May 2012rbutr Puts Climate Information In Front of Those Who Need It Most
My concern is that the system will be easy to game. For instance an author can presumably add rebuttals to her own post that point to other pages which either agree, or disagree in a way that is obviously wrong or are totally irrelevant. After chasing up a few of these readers are likely to give up or assume that there is no legitimate rebuttal to the original postModerator Response:Of course this is something which we will have to moderate. At this stage, our system is incredibly simple and we can moderate that sort of abuse manually. As our usership grows and manual moderation becomes a problem, we can react with algorithm based filters/alerts, and bring on board additional moderators with extra powers.
For every social system there is someone trying to game it, and for every game move, there is a counter-action to stop it. To date there has been no attempt at abuse of rbutr. As soon as there is, the reaction will be swift, and effective.
Shane
-
bill4344 at 18:54 PM on 9 May 2012101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions
It certainly is, Donald. Well done indeed to both SkS and the DCCEE. (Way to use my taxes for the latter) -
Riccardo at 17:09 PM on 9 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Tarciso are you relying on 150 years old measurements, performed only at surface pressure and (unspecified) room temperature and not spectroscopic and still claiming that more recent radiative transfer codes with updated data are wrong? I don't think there's any need to comment any further on this. Also, radiative transfer calculation are indeed perfomend using the cosine integrals, though your point on near field is wrong. Finally, emission by small volumes of air with a random distribution of emitting particles is isotropic as well as the overall atmospheric emission (hint, emission is incoherent). You are clearly talking about one thing you didn't study deeply enough. It's not a problem per se, but I'd suggest that before coming to any conclusion, let alone claiming that decades of radiative transfer studies are wrong, you take more time studying it. -
DonaldB at 16:35 PM on 9 May 2012101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions
What a Gish Gallop! It's ironic that Plimer used to debunk creationist arguments. -
Tarcisio José D at 16:10 PM on 9 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Dear Dr. Tom Curtis. I am not saying that the "model" can not predict the Toa radiative imbalance. What I am saying is that "Models" can not be used to calculate the effect of possible changes in CO2 concentration or variations of cloud cover. Let's see. Tyndall found for the nitrogen gas, an "absorption" of 0.33% on a pipe 48 'or 1.22 m. This result indicates a tramitância of 0.9967 / m. If we calculate the attenuation of IR radiation from the ground to the center of mass of the atmosphere 5000 meters meet -58.83 dB. This tells me that the atmosphere is opaque to IR radiation or, in other words, it retains all the heat. What is measured in the TOA is radiation own radiation to the atmosphere and not the ground. Note that this is a simplified calculation for the real would have to still apply the cosine-integral point to point because we are working within the so-called near field. So we have two systems. The first, which transfers heat between the ground and the atmosphere (and vice versa), between 0 and 5000 meters, the second trasfere that heat from the atmosphere to the space (and vice versa) of 5000 meters upwards. Each with its temperature and its composição.This explains the effect diode like. Now if we consider a transparent atmosphere and apply the theory of isotropic radiator, by calculating the attenuation from 1m to 5.000m we meet 20log(5,000)=-73.9dB result that belies the "absorption" of gases that are not part of the GHG coctel. If you left any doubt consult a physicist. -
Alex The Seal at 16:03 PM on 9 May 2012101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions
I think it's amusing that Plimer sends these questions to school children. Most other people research scientific literature. At least he's trying. :-) -
Chemware at 15:30 PM on 9 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
Dan, that raises a question: has anyone done a statistical analysis of the monthly CO2 readings in your post 10 ? -
GillianB at 14:59 PM on 9 May 2012101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions
Skeptical Science is also listed on the Resources page of Climate Science Rapid Response Team website, where you are described as: "Superbly researched and illustrated blog that examines climate change skepticism." Going from strength to strength! Well done! -
Daniel Bailey at 14:33 PM on 9 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
One telltale sign to watch out for is the slipping of the seasonal pattern (6-7 month rise culminating in a May apex). If enough tropic, temperate and boreal forest degradation occurs, and if the oceanic sinks begin to lose effectivity as carbon sinks, then the sign to watch out for is the apex of the seasonal rise continuing on into June... Needless to say, that would be very bad. Almost "game-over" bad. -
chriskoz at 14:05 PM on 9 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
DB@10, While clicking at your NOAA link, it's worth noting the growth from 4/2011 (393.28ppm) to 4/2012 was almost 3ppm thus well above the average 2ppmy-1 in the last decade (fig 3 in the link target). While the growth rate has "slowed down" (poor consolation) to just 1.5ppmy-1 in 1990-2000, now it seems to have accelerated to the levels likely unseen in the entire history of Planet Earth. Anyone wants to challenge this last statement? -
DSL at 14:00 PM on 9 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
How rapidly, robin? (reference, plz) -
Albatross at 13:24 PM on 9 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
Alex @38, To be frank, it is very telling that you are concerned with "tone" and semantics in lieu of providing compelling scientific evidence that Lindzen's assertion is correct, doing so also speaks to the weakness of both his and your case. In fact, I'm surprised that some of your posts have not been deleted for being off topic. The comments policy states: "No off topic comments. Stick to the subject at hand." But I digress, given that you have elected to defend Lindzen, please demonstrate for us all here mathematically how we should have seen 3 C warming by now. I for one, will judge your defence/case solely on the merits of your theoretical argument. -
alexharv074 at 13:04 PM on 9 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
Dana, (-Snip-) (-Snip-) Meanwhile, we do not agree that Lindzen is 'wrong'. I don't see where I said that so I am surprised that you feel we agree on that point. What we agree on is that Lindzen's estimate for climate sensitivity is lower than everyone else's, and that he may be wrong.Moderator Response: [DB] Tone-trolling and moderation complaints snipped. Future comments constructed thusly will be deleted in their entirety. FYI. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:51 AM on 9 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
We just lost another month: April 2012 Mauna Loa CO2 now at 396.18 ppm
One more month of rise before the seasonal peak is reached. This possibly puts 400 ppm within reach in May 2013...
-
Tom Curtis at 11:28 AM on 9 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Tarcisio José D @45, there is no point saying the model "... cannot explain the behaviour ... presented by the atmosphere". Clearly the model explains the radiative behaviour of the atmosphere very well:
Note that this agreement between a 1987 model using an approximation of atmospheric conditions prevailing at the time of observation, and predicting the resulting TOA radiative imbalance very well.
This is the prediction compared to observation of an earlier (1979) model using more precise atmospheric conditions as determined by a radiosonde:
This image is from Conrath 1979, a detail of which is reproduced in my post.
If your theory of the radiative behaviour of the atmosphere predicts a substantially different result to that predicted by these models, as it must if you claim they "cannot explain the behaviour" of the atmosphere, then your theory is falsified by the observational evidence. It is that simple.
So in scientific terms, there is no argument here. There is simply the choice of following you in believing a favoured theory in preference to the observations, or accepting the observations and the theory that predicts them.
-
robin6721 at 10:29 AM on 9 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
"The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since the end of the little ice age in the 1700s (when the Thames River would freeze over every winter; the last time it froze over was 1804) ..." It temperature actually rose very rapidly into the 1730`s after Maunder. The Thames did not freeze over every winter. The last London Frost Fair was in 1814. -
bill4344 at 10:15 AM on 9 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
Alex is using the standard contrarian functional definition of ad hominem, which is roughly 'someone has stated that a named contrarian's idea/s is/are wrong'.Thanks for the interesting post and for keeping it unusually free of ad hominem attacks.
It's very hard to see this as a constructive opening if the science is really what's at issue here... -
scaddenp at 10:06 AM on 9 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Then you appear to have misunderstood it. The equations are integrated over the height of atmosphere. How else could temperature be used? Again, do you understand why GHG effect depends on a temperature? -
skywatcher at 10:05 AM on 9 May 2012ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
les - I dont know how that works either, but the original sentence whizzed round the skeptic blogosphere repeated verbatim, always associated with Solani's 2011 paper. The original source, unusually, was always a link to a Google Translate version of a summary of an EIKE meeting in Germany in April 2011. The originator of the quote: Fritz Varenholt, in a verbal debate with Georg Feulner! How Chinese whispers spread on the Internet... So a verbal statement by Varenholt (see a recent article involving him here), got translated to English, then copied on a lot of english-speaking skeptic websites, presented as an 'official' summary of the Solanki paper. -
Tarcisio José D at 09:31 AM on 9 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
scaddenp @51 http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/berk.1987.modtran_desc.pdf -
scaddenp at 09:09 AM on 9 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Jose - where do you get the idea that MODTRANS does? Look again the RTEs. -
Tarcisio José D at 08:39 AM on 9 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Ricardo @ 46 An emission, spontaneously or not, must be analyzed by the principle of isotropic radiation when the distance between the points of transmission and reception (measured) is greater than 10 times the largest dimension of the radiator. Our radiator has 20,000 km long (equatorial) therefore can not be analyzed in a distance of 10 Km as an isotropic point. -
les at 08:10 AM on 9 May 2012Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
It's not so much sentences like that; but that they're a secret society - you knew that they're secret, right? - along with other secret societies like the Bilderberg group, the UN, EU, pan-dimensional shape-shifting lizards, Michelle Mann and my aunt Matilda; who are engineering the reduction of the world population by cutting off the oil supply, motivated by the AGW-hoax. Or something like that. -
scaddenp at 07:14 AM on 9 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Jose, I am still curious as to why you chose to trust a couple of dubious videos instead of textbook atmospheric physics. Both speak to something that is new to you, so why did you trust one rather than the other?
Prev 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 Next
